Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2211 (ALL)

Satya Pal Singh v. State Of U. P.

2019-09-20

AJIT KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has questioned the decision making process in the matter of disciplinary proceeding which has culminated in the imposition of penalty of maximum punishment of dismissal from service. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as Clerk with the Police Department, is alleged to have been assigned the duty relating to the files in respect of compassionate appointments under the office order dated 26.03.1997. It is alleged that one Jagan Singh had obtained compassionate appointment fraudulently and in the process of preparing forged documents, the petitioner had a crucial role being the Clerk dealing with the cases of compassionate appointments at that time. It is alleged that the appointment took place only because of the involvement of the people working in the office of the Police Department. The petitioner was issued with the charge sheet, to which the petitioner submitted reply and then the departmental inquiry was held in the matter. The petitioner while denied the charges, also duly participated in the inquiry and in the inquiry report, the charges against the petitioner were found to be proved. 4. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice to which he submitted a detailed reply. However, disciplinary authority relying upon the inquiry report rejected the reply of the petitioner as not being satisfactory and imposed major penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 24.04.2011. The petitioner against the said order preferred departmental appeal and then revision and both the forums dismissed the case of the petitioner vide order dated 27.07.2011 and 03.10.2012 respectively and finally the representation filed by the petitioner under the relevant rules also came to be dismissed on 2nd May,2016. 5. The petitioner against the said order preferred departmental appeal and then revision and both the forums dismissed the case of the petitioner vide order dated 27.07.2011 and 03.10.2012 respectively and finally the representation filed by the petitioner under the relevant rules also came to be dismissed on 2nd May,2016. 5. Assailing the order passed by the disciplinary authority confirmed in appeal and revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the findings returned by the inquiry officer were perverse as the petitioner had taken specific plea to the effect that he had been handed over the charge relating to the files of compassionate appointments by the then dealing clerk only on 20.11.1997, whereas, the records relating to the claim of compassionate appointment of Jagan Singh had already been completed on 19.05.1997 and forwarded to the Police Headquarter and which is quite proved from the letter of Police Headquarter dated 20.05.1997. The further plea taken was that file of Jagan Singh was not the file mentioned in the charge list. However, the disciplinary authority, according to petitioner, dealt with the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice in a quite casual manner and without referring to the grounds taken and submissions made in the reply questioning the findings returned by the inquiry officer, has brushed aside the reply on the ground that the reasons/facts stated in the explanation to the show cause notice, were not of such nature which might render any help to the petitioner and therefore, the explanation of the petitioner, being devoid of reasons, have been rejected and the penalty of dismissal has been awarded. 6. He further argues that the appellate authority has simply affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority in its order dated 27.07.2011 and therefore, the inherent defect with which the order of disciplinary authority suffered, did not stand cured and therefore, the order of appellate authority is also liable to be quashed. He further submits that the authority sitting in revision has again without discussing any fact stated in the explanation to the show cause notice has simply affirmed the inquiry report and the order passed by disciplinary as well as appellate authority and the said order also deserves to be quashed. The order passed on his representation has also been questioned on the same grounds. 7. The order passed on his representation has also been questioned on the same grounds. 7. Per contra, the argument advanced by learned Standing Counsel is that the petitioner, in his reply to the show cause notice, has stated that his reply already submitted to the charge sheet should be taken as a reply to the show cause notice as well and nothing new has been stated in the explanation submitted to the show cause notice which could have required consideration by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, according to him the disciplinary authority is right in recording fact that the petitioner having not stated anything new which would have supported his claim and would have given benefit to him to question the inquiry report. 8. In such above view of the matter, therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the State that the disciplinary authority has rightly rejected the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. 9. It is further submitted that in matters of disciplinary proceedings, this Court would not ordinarily interfere in the findings of fact arrived by the Inquiry Committee and then affirmed by the disciplinary authority unless such perversity is pointed out which would go to the root of charges to question the finding on the proof of charges and then the propriety in conducting the inquiry and non consideration of such material aspect as would have vitiated the findings and would have contributed to the charge of lack of due procedure to be adopted by the disciplinary authority rendering entire action in law being bad. He submits that there is no such legal error much less a substantial one traceable in the entire conduct of disciplinary authority to interfere with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority confirmed in appeal and revision. The writ petition, therefore, according to him, deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and submissions advanced across the bar and perused the record. 11. The petitioner has brought on record the explanation submitted by him to the show cause notice before the disciplinary authority. The writ petition, therefore, according to him, deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and submissions advanced across the bar and perused the record. 11. The petitioner has brought on record the explanation submitted by him to the show cause notice before the disciplinary authority. From the perusal of the reply it is revealed that the petitioner has questioned the findings of the Inquiry Committee on various factual grounds which according to the petitioner, if considered, would have made the Inquiry Officer to arrive at a different finding of fact exonerating him from the charges but I find that in its order passed by the disciplinary authority, though various legal aspects have been mentioned regarding continuance of disciplinary proceeding along with criminal prosecution, but in its ultimate paragraph no. 3, the authority has recorded finding only in three lines. The Court fails to understand as to when the facts were detailed out in the explanation submitted to the show cause notice why the authority has chosen not to refer the same before arriving at a finding that the reply/ explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory. 12. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds merit in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority has virtually failed to address the basic charge in the light of the explanation submitted by him and, therefore, it is rightly submitted that the Disciplinary Authority is not justified in rejecting the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice in such a cursory manner. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2018) 5 ADJ 587 , in which this Court while considering various other aspects has held that it is primary duty of the Disciplinary Authority to record reason of its own and if an authority has failed to consider the reply/ explanation to the show cause notice while dealing with the matter of imposition of proposed penalty then it is a case where it has to be held that an authority has virtually failed to discharge its primary duty. Such an exercise of power in the said case was held to be an arbitrary exercise of power that cannot pass testing the anvil of the Article 14 of the Constitution. As I have noticed in the present case that the Disciplinary Authority while referring to the various other aspects of the matter in the order impugned, it was necessary to refer the contents of the reply/ explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, an effort much less than the discussion on the same. It appears that the Disciplinary Authority has got swayed away by the findings returned by the Inquiry Committee though that were questioned by the petitioner in his explanation to the show cause notice and in a very casual manner rejecting the same it held in one line that reply was unsatisfactory. 14. The argument advanced by learned Standing Counsel that this Court will not ordinarily interfere in matters of disciplinary proceedings cannot be questioned but the issue is what would be the import of the word 'ordinarily'. In several English dictionaries the word 'ordinarily' is defined as 'usually' or 'generally'. In my view ordinarily means and includes a situation where not only the procedure adopted is followed as per the prescribed one but there has been due application of mind, to make it just and fair to hold that there has been due process of law. A procedure prescribed would entail details of various steps to arrive at a final result but then to make it worth calling an action not judicially reviewable, every such steps in the process of arriving at final result, should have due application of mind. Findings, in inquiry, its approval rejecting the reply and imposition of penalty all require an articulated effort at the end of the authorities accountable under the rules. It is in the above sense if proceedings are held and the procedure adopted can be justified that this Court would not 'ordinarily' interfere with the findings arrived at, by the disciplinary authority. However, on facts of this case, I do not see any due application of mind by the disciplinary authority. 15. The further argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel that the appellate authority has dealt with the matter of the inquiry report and has found no error and, therefore, the order of Disciplinary Authority cannot be accepted either. However, on facts of this case, I do not see any due application of mind by the disciplinary authority. 15. The further argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel that the appellate authority has dealt with the matter of the inquiry report and has found no error and, therefore, the order of Disciplinary Authority cannot be accepted either. The appellate authority has simply relied upon the findings returned by the Inquiry Committee and has affirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Authority without referring to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. In the case of Allahabad Bank & others v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 , the Court has already held that if there is no proper appreciation at the end of the Disciplinary Authority and if it has failed to record any reason for the conclusion drawn by it and if the appellate authority has simply referred to the findings returned by the Disciplinary Authority and Inquiry Committee, such authority has also faulted in discharge of its duty resulting in miscarriage of justice. Further, in the case of Mohammad Yunus Khan v. State of U.P., (2010) 10 SCC 539 , the Court has already held that if there is a defect at the initial stage rendering proceedings bad, null and void, such an inherent defect with which the order suffers, cannot be cured at the appellate stage. So also, in my view, the orders passed by the authority in revision and representation are bad and deserves to be set aside. 16. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 29th April,2011 and of the appellate authority dated 27th July,2011 and of the authority deciding the revision dated 3rd October,2012 and 2nd May,2016, Annexures- 2,3,5 and 7 respectively are hereby quashed. 17. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to revisit the matter from the stage of show cause notice and explanation already submitted by the petitioner. 17. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to revisit the matter from the stage of show cause notice and explanation already submitted by the petitioner. The status of the petitioner shall be that of the suspended employee in the light the of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, Ecil, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 , and shall be abide by the ultimate decision to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority as directed hereinabove within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.